American Politics during the Obama Presidency

[QUOTE=Hunt99]If you think Obama had anything to do with the corporate earnings of those companies, you are really much more stupid than you appear at first glance. Moreover, he wasn't even in office for much of the quarter that these companies are reporting earnings for.

But if you want to give him credit where none is due, I look forward to your agreement that he will deserve blame when bad things happen as well. Or will that still be Bush's fault?

And finally, you ought to remember that Enron reported positive earnings just before it filed for bankruptcy. But a gullible type who will credit anything to a newly-installed chief executive will doubtless also think that just because a bunch of numbers are reported in a 10-Q, they must be correct.[/QUOTE]Well said. The profits of these companies last quarter were all made on their trading desks (gambling) and not through conventional means (writing loans) In fact, many of the aforementioned companies where publically stating (mid -March) to short and buy puts against them which resulted in said companies orchestrating the biggest short squeeze ever recorded in the financial sectors. A complete fleecing of the sheeple.

These companies are almost all insolvent justifying why the Fed is advocating the termination of mark-to-market and their non-dislosure of level three assets.

This is the beginning of the end of a 20+year credit binge, credit that the US (or most other countries for that matter) cannot and will not ever pay back in today's dollar (inevitable devaluation).

With this in mind, do people really believe that the world has resolved it's debt issues in just six short months?

[QUOTE=Rock Harders]The neo-cons on this board can keep on blowing bitter hot air if they choose, or they can observe a number of my predictions of Obama's successes coming true before their very eyes. [/QUOTE]I still don't know what a "Neo-Con" is. I know it means Neo-Conservative, but the negative connotation troubles my giving, caring, chica loving nature.

Please refer to me as "Neo-Mong" or Neo-Monger.

Thank you.

P. S. - Regarding Rocktradamus' predictions. I predict it will rain. Someday. Then followed by a period of sun. Some other day.

With Obama at the helm the Pirates will not prevail!

It is my belief that the end game will be:

1) Cubs.

2) Cardinals.

3) Milwaukee.

4) Astros.

5) Pirates.

And I believe the Somali Pirates will proclaim, as the highest ranking Shiite leader associated with Hezbollah in Lebanon declared that, "Obama is to be trusted and negotiated with".

I just want these Fuckers to like us again.

Cubs win, Cubs win! Holy Cow, Cubs win!

It is an angry-left-wing label developed to aid liberals responding to intelligent conservatives with more than gaping mouths and looking like a guppy.

The read-between-the-lines includes a heavy dose of antisemitism (aimed at Jews that don't vote democrat -- I. E. Those self-hating types that while they send their kids to live on a kibbutz for a few months, don't have the balls to stand up for Israel) I don't understand why they had to add the antisemitic angle, but it's there.

Me? While I am a son of David, mine is a three-person God.

Please, call me anything you like, if your calling me names, I am sure that I am on the right path.

I predict that what has been happening in the American consciousness will ultimately be reflected in real term limits (I. E. at the polls--I believe that those are the term limits intended by the framers)

America is waking up from a nasty bender, shaking out the cob webs and trying to remember all the details from a raucous, feel-good stretch of gilding the lily and believing it isn't what I do but how I feel and empathize that is important. Rethinking how things went so wrong when doing it felt soooo good.

I am sure RH thinks I am a racist, sexist, bigoted homophobe. The truth? What's it matter? He doesn't care to know the truth, he knows what he knows and that is the truth no matter how in accurate it is.

If liberals actually practiced anything that they preach, it would be a different story.

[QUOTE=QuakHunter]With Obama at the helm the Pirates will not prevail!

It is my belief that the end game will be:

1) Cubs.

2) Cardinals.

3) Milwaukee.

4) Astros.

5) Pirates.

And I believe the Somali Pirates will proclaim, as the highest ranking Shiite leader associated with Hezbollah in Lebanon declared that, "Obama is to be trusted and negotiated with".

I just want these Fuckers to like us again.

Cubs win, Cubs win! Holy Cow, Cubs win![/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=Rock Harders]I mentioned, I'll bet you a full night of drinks and pussy at Black that NONE of the companies I mentioned will go bankrupt as a result of the upheaval of the past year or so. All of the companies I mentioned had an extremely profitable business model before they started involving themselves in garbage securities, which foolish executives turned to as a way of feeding larger bonuses to themselves through short term unsustainable earnings numbers. They have reverted to their standard business practices and will be profitable indefinitely. [/QUOTE]While I have no problem joining you for mongering at Black, I can't take you up on this wager. Why? Because the government has already let it be known that a company "too big to fail" will be artificially propped up with taxpayer money.

I don't think it's the case with GE, WFC, or JPM, but it is beyond dispute that GS, C, and BAC would have been in receivership without infusion of over $200 billion of tax money.

Of course, WFC and JPM just got $100 billion in subsidies to buy WM and WB, respectively.

I do not agree that presidents can have no effect on the economy. Usually the effect is in the aggregate, but of late the effects are becoming much more direct, picking "winners" and "losers." Of course, in the long term the whole stinking mess will come crashing down, as efforts to cancel the law of supply and demand are about as successful as seeking to cancel the law of gravity.

There will be a price to be paid by tripling and quadrupling the national debt in a short period of time, from an already-unacceptably high level, as we will see. My challenge is to foresee how the transformation of the USA into a large version of Argentina can be exploited for profit.

However, before those great plans for "change" come to fruition, it's more likely that history will toss up another Reagan to sweep away our present Second Coming of Jimmy Carter. Three more years of Carter II, and then the reformation.

I was watching the Daily Show and they had Elizabeth Warren on. She was speaking about how after the 1st Great Depression (joke) the nation implimented regulation that avoided the typical boom-bust cycle of the preceding 150 years of U. S. history, from the late 1930's to late 1980's.

FDIC, SEC regulations, and Glass-Steagal (separating commercial banking from investment banking)

And that since Reagan this regulation has been eroded.

Without getting into partisinship (impossible dream I know) can you edumacated mongers edumacate me on the subject a bit?

The notion of "too big to fail" while commonly used in the pejorative by the main stream media (regardless of political slant) is largely misunderstood as to its roll in market psychology and in some cases its necessity for economic stability.

Unfortunately, the morons in the previous administration (please note that I am dumping on a Republican Admin) did not understand it and destroyed (yes destroyed) TBTF as part of the bedrock of market psychology. If they had chosen to continue the notion / perception of TBTF, it would have helped last summer / fall and would have lessened the impact of the financial crisis across the economy. The event to which I refer is of course letting Lehman Bros fail. It shattered TBTF and immediately destroyed any confidence in any and all counter parties to financial transactions. In the wake of Lehman's September bankruptcy, the entire economy shut down for weeks, in large part due to the nonavailability of commercial paper and other short-term debt instruments that are the oil to the economic engine. This acerbated the already bad economic situation and accelerated layoffs across the nation in all sectors of the economy (the effects of taking three weeks of GDP and throwing it out the window)

You were correct on the NEW and 'improved' selective TBTF, if you combine these two notions:

[QUOTE=Hunt99]Because the government has already let it be known that a company "too big to fail" will be artificially propped up with taxpayer money[/QUOTE][QUOTE=Hunt99]I do not agree that presidents can have no effect on the economy. Usually the effect is in the aggregate, but of late the effects are becoming much more direct, picking "winners" and "losers."[/QUOTE]Now the precedent has been set that TBTF is entirely at the whim or agenda of the president. Whether Obama, Bush, Reagan, Washington or anyone in between, that is a very bad thing.

For TBTF to support finding a bottom in a financial crisis, its existence must be absolute in the mind of the market participants, even though it maybe in part mythology.

Loads of pictures of Chavez and Obama making goo-goo eyes at each other.

My left-leaning friends are all so happy - isn't it a wonderful change from the animosity of the past 8 years?

And I have to agree. Like President O, I'd much rather have an amicable relationship with Chavez's Venezuala. Problem is, I can't as easily ignore the human rights abuses, the nationalization of industry and that inconvenient 'president-for-life' thing he's trying to do.

I find it sickening to see the President of the United States dealing with an anti-democratic thug like Chavez. Obviously our new President values smiles and handshakes over freedom. This isn't an isolated case and it will not end well.

Principles? We don't need no stinkin' principles.

[QUOTE=Paul VJK]Loads of pictures of Chavez and Obama making goo-goo eyes at each other.

My left-leaning friends are all so happy - isn't it a wonderful change from the animosity of the past 8 years?

And I have to agree. Like President O, I'd much rather have an amicable relationship with Chavez's Venezuala. Problem is, I can't as easily ignore the human rights abuses, the nationalization of industry and that inconvenient 'president-for-life' thing he's trying to do.

I find it sickening to see the President of the United States dealing with an anti-democratic thug like Chavez. Obviously our new President values smiles and handshakes over freedom. This isn't an isolated case and it will not end well.

Principles? We don't need no stinkin' principles.[/QUOTE]Who needs principles when we have polls to worry about.

I just want the Fuckers to like us again.

I voted for Obama because I thought he was Irish. Then I noticed it wasn't O'Bama. I quit drinking after that.

This type of diplomacy and interactions rankles some. They like the hard ass approach. Cut 'em off. Ignore 'em. Give 'em the finger. But in today's world, charming a questionable leader to the point that they say "I want to be your friend" and smiling like a big ol' kid can give you leverage that can be exploited for your benefit. Not theirs. "Kill 'em with kindness" does work a sizable amount of time. We have everything to gain and nothing to loose. The World is changing.

[QUOTE=Damman]This type of diplomacy and interactions rankles some. They like the hard ass approach. Cut 'em off. Ignore 'em. Give 'em the finger. But in today's world, charming a questionable leader to the point that they say "I want to be your friend" and smiling like a big ol' kid can give you leverage that can be exploited for your benefit. Not theirs. "Kill 'em with kindness" does work a sizable amount of time. We have everything to gain and nothing to loose. The World is changing.[/QUOTE]Yes, and I ’m sure it gives the rest of south America a warm fuzzy feeling, knowing the President of the United States is budding up with this idiot!

The Obama Chavez lovefest is just another example of how we've gone back to the Carter years. Want to get the respect and attention of the United States? Be a thug, a bully, a tyrant. (Given Obamalove to varying degrees: Russia, Iran, Cuba, Saudi Arabia, Venezuela.) Want the back of Obama's hand, and to be treated like shit? Be a friend of the USA. (Just the opposite treatment, to varying degrees: Israel, Germany, Colombia, Poland.)

It will get worse before it gets better. It is patterned in the DNA in this man to kowtow to those who do not deserve respect, and to contemptuously treat those who ought to be regarded as friends.

[QUOTE=Damman]This type of diplomacy and interactions rankles some. They like the hard ass approach. Cut 'em off. Ignore 'em. Give 'em the finger. But in today's world, charming a questionable leader to the point that they say "I want to be your friend" and smiling like a big ol' kid can give you leverage that can be exploited for your benefit. Not theirs. "Kill 'em with kindness" does work a sizable amount of time. We have everything to gain and nothing to loose. The World is changing.[/QUOTE]I understand the argument, but I don't believe it works. As it's been said (I believe by DeGaulle) Countries don't have friends, they have interests. Although, our new President seems to believe otherwise.

Much of this (in my view, mistaken) attitude is the basis of our President's belief in disarmament. And the history of disarmament attempts can be used to prove the uselessness of this attitude.

The Wall Street Journal had a very good editorial about the history of disarmament: [url]http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123923509427103247.html#mod=djemEditorialPage[/url]

It's not about a 'hard-ass' approach vs. A charm offensive. It's about reality. And history. I'm very afraid that the President and his advisors believe they can ignore reality and get away with it. And that never works. As I said, Chavez is an anti-democratic thug. No matter what the United States does, I don't believe Chavez will ever be interested in stepping down. Based on his record, he'll continue to consolidate his power - by punishing dissenting views and nationalizing industries.

So we can smile and be friends with him - or recognize that we shouldn't be friends and push for real reforms in that country.

Same thing appies to Iran, North Korea and a bunch of other places around the world.

11 - 1 to the Braves.

It appears that the CIC's "daring and decisive" actions weren't exactly that. The following is from a maritime blog populated by current and ex-military personnel.

The following is a synopsis of what really took place. In the vernacular, BHO means Barrack Obama or President Pantywaist as posted below.

The truth behind Maersk Alabama?

Posted on Thursday, April 16, 2009 6:09:51 PM by mrmargaritaville.

Having spoken to some SEAL pals here in Virginia Beach yesterday and asking why this thing dragged out for 4 days, I got the following:

1. BHO wouldn't authorize the DEVGRU / NSWC SEAL teams to the scene for 36 hours going against OSC (on scene commander) recommendation.

2. Once they arrived, BHO imposed restrictions on their ROE that they couldn't do anything unless the hostage's life was in "imminent" danger.

3. The first time the hostage jumped, the SEALS had the raggies all sighted in, but could not fire due to ROE restriction.

4. When the navy RIB came under fire as it approached with supplies, no fire was returned due to ROE restrictions. As the raggies were shooting at the RIB, they were exposed and the SEALS had them all dialed in.

5. BHO specifically denied two rescue plans developed by the Bainbridge CPN and SEAL teams.

6. Bainbridge CPN and SEAL team CDR finally decide they have the OpArea and OSC authority to solely determine risk to hostage. 4 hours later, 3 dead raggies.

7. BHO immediately claims credit for his "daring and decisive" behaviour. As usual with him, it's BS.

So per our last email thread, I'm downgrading Oohbaby's performace to D-. Only reason it's not an F is that the hostage survived.

Read the following accurate account.

Philips' first leap into the warm, dark water of the Indian Ocean hadn't worked out as well. With the Bainbridge in range and a rescue by his country's Navy possible, Philips threw himself off of his lifeboat prison, enabling Navy shooters onboard the destroyer a clear shot at his captors — and none was taken.

The guidance from National Command Authority — the president of the United States, Barack Obama — had been clear: a peaceful solution was the only acceptable outcome to this standoff unless the hostage's life was in clear, extreme danger.

The next day, a small Navy boat approaching the floating raft was fired on by the Somali pirates — and again no fire was returned and no pirates killed. This was again due to the cautious stance assumed by Navy personnel thanks to the combination of a lack of clear guidance from Washington and a mandate from the commander in chief's staff not to act until Obama, a man with no background of dealing with such issues and no track record of decisiveness, decided that any outcome other than a "peaceful solution" would be acceptable.

After taking fire from the Somali kidnappers again Saturday night, the on scene commander decided he'd had enough.

Keeping his authority to act in the case of a clear and present danger to the hostage's life and having heard nothing from Washington since yet another request to mount a rescue operation had been denied the day before, the Navy officer — unnamed in all media reports to date — decided the AK47 one captor had leveled at Philips' back was a threat to the hostage's life and ordered the NSWC team to take their shots.

Three rounds downrange later, all three brigands became enemy KIA and Philips was safe.

There is upside, downside, and spinside to the series of events over the last week that culminated in yesterday's dramatic rescue of an American hostage.

Almost immediately following word of the rescue, the Obama administration and its supporters claimed victory against pirates in the Indian Ocean and [1] declared that the dramatic end to the standoff put paid to questions of the inexperienced president's toughness and decisiveness.

Despite the Obama administration's (and its sycophants') attempt to spin yesterday's success as a result of bold, decisive leadership by the inexperienced president, the reality is nothing of the sort. What should have been a standoff lasting only hours — as long as it took the USS Bainbridge and its team of NSWC operators to steam to the location — became an embarrassing four day and counting standoff between a ragtag handful of criminals with rifles and a U. S. Navy warship.

Kind of like a waterborne version of Bubba Clinton's Somali prosecution.